| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dkegel@...gle.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC) On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > The thing I don't much like about your patches is the addition of more > of these global reserve type things in the allocators. They kind of > suck (not your code, just the concept of them in general -- ie. including > the PF_MEMALLOC reserve). I'd like to eventually reach a model where > reclaimable memory from a given subsystem is always backed by enough > resources to be able to reclaim it. What stopped you from going that > route with the network subsystem? (too much churn, or something > fundamental?) That sounds very right aside from the global reserve. A given subsystem may exist in multiple instances and serve sub partitions of the system. F.e. there may be a network card on node 5 and a job running on nodes 3-7 and another netwwork card on node 15 with the corresponding nodes 13-17 doing I/O through it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists